The first "missed shot"

[Jamey Flanagan]

The little white dog Jean Hill talked about was not flowers. It was a little lambchop doll if I recall correctly. Jackie herself later corroborated this. If I recall correctly a child gave her the doll at Love Field. So, yes, it did look just like a little small puppy and people who absolutely did not want any hint of a other shooter took her little dog statement and twisted it and ran with it. They said this lady is nuts! She's seeing a little dog in between Jackie and JFK.......how can you believe anything she says? And the early critics seeing this as an obvious embarrassment to their cause didn't rely as much on her statements as they would have. But now in hindsight we see that her little white dog statement was 💯% accurate at least as far as she knew it. I know Moorman had different recollections from Hill in later years about some events but looking at their immediate statements which harmonize I think you can take these early statements as the gospel truth as far as what they thought they saw. Look at her comment about the blood and thinking that the assassin had been shot. Then remember the story of the newsman who saw the pool of blood and later took a photographer to take pictures of it. When studying the Bible they say that you should always corroborate scripture with at least 2 or 3 witnesses. If you find 2 or 3 different Biblical accounts saying the same thing then it is most certainly going to be true. Same thing with JFK assassination witnesses in my opinion. If you can take one piece of testimony and use others to corroborate that testimony then I think you are as close to the truth as you can get in this case. 

[Jamey Flanagan]

Found this pic online just now and the zoomed in blowup with the doll outlined.

[Jamey Flanagan]

This is a little off topic but look at these pics. The President is right in front of Jean Hill just before the headshot, yet she is looking off to the right. I guess an argument could be made that she looked that direction in response to a gunshot sound or something instinctively. Being that you are there to see JFK and Jackie and when they are directly in front of you your head is turned in a different direction, it seems odd otherwise. The second pic is after the headshot impact and once again the argument could be made that upon that shot hitting she turned back looking at the president. However, I, like many believe the existing Z film has been altered. I think the image of Hill and Moorman in the grass there as the limo is directly in front of them is most probably actually from a bit earlier. Moorman has the camera poised to take a picture but she did take a couple of pics of motorcycle cops before her famous photo. I think this was them at the moment she took one of those and Hill was looking to the right at the oncoming Presidential limo. Just my opinion. But you do have several Z fraud spectators seemingly looking to their right when JFK is in front of them or has already passed them. The rotund guy wearing the apron or whatever comes to mind. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Jamey Flanagan
Spelling

[Mark Tyler]

On 5/15/2021 at 12:43 AM, John Butler said:

People pick on Jean Hill not for what she said later, but for what she said at the time.  I agree this is unfair treatment, but this is what they first used to discredit her.  And, she had to be discredited.  The puppy/flowers and the man on the hill/Jack Ruby and other things were used.

Yes, I agree with that analysis.  When the Warren Commission were preparing the case against Oswald they only had 3 shots to allocate in their theory, so any witness reporting four or more had to be ignored or made to look unreliable (especially a high profile witness like Jean Hill who broadcast her views to a worldwide audience on the day of the assassination).

[Mark Tyler]

22 hours ago, Jamey Flanagan said:

Found this pic online just now and the zoomed in blowup with the doll outlined.

That definitely looks like a doll to me, and could be interpreted as a small lapdog.  Whether it was white flowers or a white doll it matches perfectly with her testimony:

Mrs. Hill. Between the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and they kept asking me what kind of a dog and I said, "I don't know, I wasn't interested in what was in the seat," but I said, "It was white and fuzzy," fuzzy and I said, "It was something white and kind of fuzzy and it was in the seat between them," and I said, "I just got to thinking---it must be a small dog," because I had remarked to my girl friend as they were taking us in the police station, I said, "Why?" I said, "I could see Liz Taylor or the Gabors traveling with a bunch of dogs, but I can't see the Kennedys traveling with dogs. Why would they have a dog with them on tour?" And, when we remarked about that she and I both--and I said, "Did you see it? What kind of a dog was it? Why were they taking a dog?" I found out later that it was those roses in the seat, but I knew they were looking at something and I just barely glanced and I saw this.

[Tony Krome]

1 hour ago, Mark Tyler said:

That definitely looks like a doll to me, and could be interpreted as a small lapdog.  Whether it was white flowers or a white doll it matches perfectly with her testimony:

Mrs. Hill. Between the President and Mrs. Kennedy, and they kept asking me what kind of a dog and I said, "I don't know, I wasn't interested in what was in the seat," but I said, "It was white and fuzzy," fuzzy and I said, "It was something white and kind of fuzzy and it was in the seat between them," and I said, "I just got to thinking---it must be a small dog," because I had remarked to my girl friend as they were taking us in the police station, I said, "Why?" I said, "I could see Liz Taylor or the Gabors traveling with a bunch of dogs, but I can't see the Kennedys traveling with dogs. Why would they have a dog with them on tour?" And, when we remarked about that she and I both--and I said, "Did you see it? What kind of a dog was it? Why were they taking a dog?" I found out later that it was those roses in the seat, but I knew they were looking at something and I just barely glanced and I saw this.

Now look at the Moorman photo, or the Altgens 6 photo. Just how close would you have to be to see that white object sitting down on the seat, and see it long enough to guess that it was dog shaped. I'm imagining a slow limo within 10 to 15 feet.

She even saw knees;

Mr. SPECTER - How would you describe the position of his hands?
Mrs. HILL - He was sitting here [indicating] and Mrs. Kennedy---he was like this [indicating].
Mr. SPECTER - You are indicating the right hand on the left knee? 
Mrs. HILL - Yes.

[John Butler]

Again, you can go to HIll Exhibit No. 5 and see how Arlen Specter drew what she said.  Position A (Mary and Jean's location) is right next to Position X (p. limo).  The p. limo is right next to them and not out in the center lane.

Jean Hill said many things that contradicted the official story.  Mary and her were on radio and TV with their story very early on day.  She had to be discredited.  Later, she did it to herself.  And, I can't figure if she did that to not be controversial and take some of the criticism off her, or what?

Edited May 16, 2021 by John Butler

[Richard Price]

54 minutes ago, John Butler said:

The p. limo is right next to them and not out in the center lane.

John, I don't have time to go back over her entire testimony right now, but you can read it here:  https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hill_j.htm

She specifically says, if I remember correctly:  it (the limo) was left of the center lane, not all the way over to the lane she was next to, but definitely not within the center lane marker lines. as depicted in most if not all photos.  This also jibes with some other witnesses that said the limo moved leftward (and slowed) as the driver was looking back.

[Jamey Flanagan]

Found this on a website and wasn't quite sure what to make of it. It seems a little different from the footage we get in the extant Z film to me. But anyway, in this clip you can see the limo start to drift slightly towards the lefthand lane from the center already even before disappearing behind the sign. Anyone have any thoughts on this clip?

[Tony Krome]

4 hours ago, Richard Price said:

She specifically says, if I remember correctly:  it (the limo) was left of the center lane, not all the way over to the lane she was next to, but definitely not within the center lane marker lines. as depicted in most if not all photos.  This also jibes with some other witnesses that said the limo moved leftward (and slowed) as the driver was looking back.

Not an exact fit, but gives a general idea;

[John Butler]

11 hours ago, Richard Price said:

John, I don't have time to go back over her entire testimony right now, but you can read it here:  https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hill_j.htm

She specifically says, if I remember correctly:  it (the limo) was left of the center lane, not all the way over to the lane she was next to, but definitely not within the center lane marker lines. as depicted in most if not all photos.  This also jibes with some other witnesses that said the limo moved leftward (and slowed) as the driver was looking back.

There are 3 lanes going west towards the Triple Underpass.  Richard says Jean said the it (the p. limo) was left of the center lane.  If left of the center lane than the p. limo must have been in the outside or south lane near the grass.

"not all the way over to the lane she was next to, but definitely not within the center lane marker lines"  So, with this description the p. limo was in the left lane.  Which makes Hill Exhibit No. 5 a better description of Jean Hill's testimony than not.

From the description Jean Hill gave this is more than likely what she was saying.  Specter placed the X closer to her than he should.  Seeing the things within the limo she saw is more likely from this position.

OBTW, this is the crowd that Jean was talking about across the street from her location.  There is no other crowd further down except the Manniquin Row folk, and they are not really there according to Bronson.

Edited May 17, 2021 by John Butler

[David Andrews]

On 5/13/2021 at 11:03 PM, Ron Bulman said:

The Last Dissenting Witness is worth reading, take it with a grain of salt, as with everything related.  Bill Newman is legit from Boom.  He dove and yelled for his wife to get down and they took their children down with them.  Boom came over his right shoulder and he saw it's effect. 

Well - speaking of synchronized shots - he heard a boom and saw the effect of a shot.  Was it the effect of a shot from the Grassy Knoll or Pergola?  The South Knoll evidence presented here is starting to look compelling...

[John Butler]

I posted this Croft photo earlier.  This photo has always bothered me.  There are things in it that are questionable.  I have numbered these from 1 to 5.  No. 1 is some structure that looks like a Roman aqueduct, but is probably a passenger train.  You know, the one the DPD officers spoke of in their statements.  The long, slow train that is absent from almost all media in Dealey Plaza.  If not a train then what?

No. 2-  Has to do with the west side building extension that is one story tall and the same color as the TSBD.  I don't see that.  All I see is something blue.  Is that the west side building extension?

No. 3-  That pickup truck looks awfully large in comparison to the people and other vehicles?

No. 4-  Where are the reflections on the side of the vehicle.  The p. limo had a high polish and is almost directly facing the sun.  So, where are the reflections.  We should see Croft and the people standing by him.  Wonder who they were?

No. 5-  That last little thing is the rear wheels difference in size of the whitewall in shadow and the larger size in sunlight.  I can hear it now.  The sunlight caused the bottom part of the wheel's whitewall to become magnified.  mmmh?

I forgot the 5 or possibly 6 people who have cameras.  I guess all there film went bad in processing.  I wonder what that film would have shown.

Edited May 21, 2021 by John Butler

[John Butler]

I had to answer my own question, No. 1.

Edited May 21, 2021 by John Butler

[Tony Krome]

5 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Well - speaking of synchronized shots - he heard a boom and saw the effect of a shot.  Was it the effect of a shot from the Grassy Knoll or Pergola?  The South Knoll evidence presented here is starting to look compelling...

We have a boom eyewitness, it was associated with a flash of light and smoke. The majority of earwitnesses speak of fireworks. Do professional assassins use weapons that reveal their position with Hollywood type effects? The Grassy Knoll has had a 50 year run with nothing to show.